1. It's simple and free.
2. Your username cannot be used by guests.
3. You can personalise your profile picture.
4. Comments remain editable for 5 mins after submitting.
5. There are no captchas when you submit a comment.
6. You are informed of replies to your comments.
7. Your comments are archived for future reference.

Arctic ice not being replaced, and why that is a HUGE problem

(9:31) Thom Hartmann discusses the Arctic ice formation which "normally" occurs during the winter months, and how the lack of it in 2017 threatens to release billions of tons of methane trapped underneath.

body{zoom:96%!important;} It's happening and the time for quibbling is past- time to figure out what we can do to save as much as possible, if anything. We can't wait until the last holdouts are finally convinced by watching their golf courses blow away on Tatooine Earth. It's like being a perch in a slowly evaporating pond listening to a little trout prove that the water isn't disappearing: we're all growing larger! Yay! I suppose the holdouts will eventually decide it's God's judgment on the unbelievers, "so let's git 'em"!

body{zoom:96%!important;} It's happening and the time for quibbling is past- time to figure out what we can do to save as much as possible, if anything. We can't wait until the last holdouts are finally convinced by watching their golf courses blow away on Tatooine Earth. It's like being a perch in a slowly evaporating pond listening to a little trout prove that the water isn't disappearing: we're all growing larger! Yay! I suppose the holdouts will eventually decide it's God's judgment on the unbelievers, "so let's git 'em"!

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(296 days ago)

I really don't care about this. The Chinese dunnit and the only thing that pisses me off i sthat my ice cream's melting faster

I really don't care about this. The Chinese dunnit and the only thing that pisses me off i sthat my ice cream's melting faster

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
The one and only Mad(300 days ago)

It does this quite periodically. Not only are we at the peak of the 60 year amo cycle, but we are also coming off of a El nino year. But occasionally the weather patterns also conspire to drive the multi year ice out into the Atlantic where it melts. It soon. Ones back

It does this quite periodically. Not only are we at the peak of the 60 year amo cycle, but we are also coming off of a El nino year. But occasionally the weather patterns also conspire to drive the multi year ice out into the Atlantic where it melts. It soon. Ones back

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

WalterEgo(299 days ago)

The extremes of AMO cycles (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) vary the temperature about 1F. The cycle we are in right now started around the mid 1990s. LINK So AMO cycles cannot account for the 20C warmer North Pole than expected that was measured this winter, and the Greenland ice melting 600% faster than computer models predict.

We are coming off the El Nino cycle, which has an overall warming effect, moving into the opposite which is La Nina, which has an overall cooling effect. So El Nino/La Nina cannot account for the extreme temperatures and melting measured this winter, especially if combined.

The extremes of AMO cycles (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) vary the temperature about 1F. The cycle we are in right now started around the mid 1990s. LINK So AMO cycles cannot account for the 20C warmer North Pole than expected that was measured this winter, and the Greenland ice melting 600% faster than computer models predict.

We are coming off the El Nino cycle, which has an overall warming effect, moving into the opposite which is La Nina, which has an overall cooling effect. So El Nino/La Nina cannot account for the extreme temperatures and melting measured this winter, especially if combined.

I wish you were right, but you're not. Got any more theories?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(299 days ago)

Walter I love it when you love mention real science. Its hilarious how it confuses the conservatard. sadly no you cannot argue with him when they lacks a basic education in science. they simply cannot accept that they are wrong. you cant teach someone who thinks he has all the answers . You will just get alinsky rule 5 mockery as he shows. He has swallowed the propaganda from breitbart and has branded himself by his gullible aceptance of fake science and fake news .

Walter I love it when you love mention real science. Its hilarious how it confuses the conservatard. sadly no you cannot argue with him when they lacks a basic education in science. they simply cannot accept that they are wrong. you cant teach someone who thinks he has all the answers . You will just get alinsky rule 5 mockery as he shows. He has swallowed the propaganda from breitbart and has branded himself by his gullible aceptance of fake science and fake news .

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
The one and only Mad(298 days ago)

And the next thing that Walter will fail to do is explain why why the ENSO cycle changes the average surface temperature.

And the next thing that Walter will fail to do is explain why why the ENSO cycle changes the average surface temperature.

No no silly idea, that might lead to climate denial

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Real mad(299 days ago)

Walter, when you get a chance, load up some common sense. 20 F above normal is quite normal for warm plumes in the arctic.the cold air gets displaced elsewhere. And Greenland melting is quite normal. Have you noted that they find vegetation under the Ice from the MWP.

Walter, when you get a chance, load up some common sense. 20 F above normal is quite normal for warm plumes in the arctic.the cold air gets displaced elsewhere. And Greenland melting is quite normal. Have you noted that they find vegetation under the Ice from the MWP.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

WalterEgo(298 days ago)

I'm uploading some common sense. 20F is about 1/3 of 20C. 20C above normal is not normal. -25C was expected, -5C was measured in November 2016 over most of the Arctic. LINK

I'm uploading some common sense. 20F is about 1/3 of 20C. 20C above normal is not normal. -25C was expected, -5C was measured in November 2016 over most of the Arctic. LINK

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
The one and only Mad(297 days ago)

Absolute nonsense Walter, and do you know why?

The Arctic circle has very poor coverage by instrument or satellite, it's has very little land area, and even that is round the edges. What you've been fed is the output of a computer extrapolating into the Arctic.

The Arctic circle has very poor coverage by instrument or satellite, it's has very little land area, and even that is round the edges. What you've been fed is the output of a computer extrapolating into the Arctic.

As I said, download some comments sense

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

WalterEgo(297 days ago)

The Arctic and Antarctic have been monitored by polar orbiting satellites since the 70s. LINK Scientists are really interested in what happens at the poles because they are warming the quickest, especially the Arctic since much of the ice is floating on water which stores heat better than rock. I believe the Arctic is warming 3 or 4 times faster than most of the rest of the planet.

Computer models predicted -25C. Arctic weather stations and polar orbiting satellites measured -5C. Observed reality is worse than the predictions, suggesting the climate is more sensitive to changes in the composition of the atmosphere than we previously thought. Basically, we're flucked.

The Arctic and Antarctic have been monitored by polar orbiting satellites since the 70s. LINK Scientists are really interested in what happens at the poles because they are warming the quickest, especially the Arctic since much of the ice is floating on water which stores heat better than rock. I believe the Arctic is warming 3 or 4 times faster than most of the rest of the planet.

Computer models predicted -25C. Arctic weather stations and polar orbiting satellites measured -5C. Observed reality is worse than the predictions, suggesting the climate is more sensitive to changes in the composition of the atmosphere than we previously thought. Basically, we're flucked.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Real mad(297 days ago)

Walter, the satellites went AWOL a year or so ago.. Suspect the polarising filter jammed, but they never measured temperature, there is no satellite coverage at the poles on RSS or UAH.

Walter, the satellites went AWOL a year or so ago.. Suspect the polarising filter jammed, but they never measured temperature, there is no satellite coverage at the poles on RSS or UAH.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

WalterEgo(296 days ago)

UAH (the satellite group from the University of Alabama Huntsville) went AWOL (was badly calibrated). It's been fixed (now includes adjustment for diurnal cycles that come into play as satellites drift).

UAH (the satellite group from the University of Alabama Huntsville) went AWOL (was badly calibrated). It's been fixed (now includes adjustment for diurnal cycles that come into play as satellites drift).

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
The one and only Mad(296 days ago)

Walter, the satellites DO NOT cover the poles, rhat includes the temperature data sets.UAH and RSS.but yes they are always adjusting, based on calibrating on fixed ground signals.

Thanks. I'll summarise the article for those who can't be bothered to read it.

There are multiple groups of satellites that collect temperature data. Turns out that one of the groups was badly calibrated and showing results different to the others by a factor of 3. That was in 2015 and has been corrected. Satellite groups and Arctic weather stations measured -5C when they were expecting -25C in November 2017.

Thanks. I'll summarise the article for those who can't be bothered to read it.

There are multiple groups of satellites that collect temperature data. Turns out that one of the groups was badly calibrated and showing results different to the others by a factor of 3. That was in 2015 and has been corrected. Satellite groups and Arctic weather stations measured -5C when they were expecting -25C in November 2017.

Are you saying we have no temperature data for the Arctic and Antarctic?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
The one and only Mad(296 days ago)

Not from the satellites no. Their path doesn't take them over the poles,, so any scan is at a very acute angle, and therefore error prone. And the Arctic is mostly water not land, so temp stations are not permanently located above 80N The temps are mostly modelled using computers from a small number on the edges of the arctic, so take with pinch of salt.

Not from the satellites no. Their path doesn't take them over the poles,, so any scan is at a very acute angle, and therefore error prone. And the Arctic is mostly water not land, so temp stations are not permanently located above 80N The temps are mostly modelled using computers from a small number on the edges of the arctic, so take with pinch of salt.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

WalterEgo(295 days ago)

You are thinking of geostationary satellites that orbit the equator.

Polar orbiting satellites orbit north/south. NOAA run 2 polar orbiting satellites constantly. The European Space Agency run 2 polar orbiting satellites called MetOp. NASA also run polar orbiting satellites. These satellite groups have onboard a wide range of instrumentation including temperature measurement with very high accuracy.

Polar orbiting satellites orbit north/south. NOAA run 2 polar orbiting satellites constantly. The European Space Agency run 2 polar orbiting satellites called MetOp. NASA also run polar orbiting satellites. These satellite groups have onboard a wide range of instrumentation including temperature measurement with very high accuracy.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
The one and only Mad(288 days ago)

Walter can I ask a simple question. How do you measure temperature from space ?

Walter can I ask a simple question. How do you measure temperature from space ?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

guest123456789(299 days ago)

Any climate data prior to 1880 is rejected because it doesn't tell the story they want to tell. You can look at historical cycles millions of years ago that shows the earth has been 16 degrees C warmer most of the time when animals roamed the planet. But since all that is prior to 1880, it's meaningless to the general public.

Any climate data prior to 1880 is rejected because it doesn't tell the story they want to tell. You can look at historical cycles millions of years ago that shows the earth has been 16 degrees C warmer most of the time when animals roamed the planet. But since all that is prior to 1880, it's meaningless to the general public.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

WalterEgo(298 days ago)

We've been through this many times before. Either update your ideas, or tell me where I'm wrong and teach me something - otherwise you just sound like a child with learning difficulties.

Climate data prior to 1880 is not rejected, it is simply less accurate because it is indirect - for example, if the Romans had vineyards in Scotland, then the Scottish climate was conducive to growing grapes during Roman times. It doesn't tell you much about the climate at the South Pole at the time.

1880 was when we began measuring the temperature with actual instruments around the planet. When you hear "... on record" or "... when records began" or something similar, that means since we started measuring global temperature with instruments, ie. 1880.

And again, we have been through the point you keep repeating like it's the only idea you've got - that the climate has been warmer before humans existed, therefore humans are not responsible for the warming we are experiencing today. It doesn't work. Most warm periods in the distant past were the consequence of higher concentrations of greenhouse gases. Just like the warming today.

We've been through this many times before. Either update your ideas, or tell me where I'm wrong and teach me something - otherwise you just sound like a child with learning difficulties.

Climate data prior to 1880 is not rejected, it is simply less accurate because it is indirect - for example, if the Romans had vineyards in Scotland, then the Scottish climate was conducive to growing grapes during Roman times. It doesn't tell you much about the climate at the South Pole at the time.

1880 was when we began measuring the temperature with actual instruments around the planet. When you hear "... on record" or "... when records began" or something similar, that means since we started measuring global temperature with instruments, ie. 1880.

And again, we have been through the point you keep repeating like it's the only idea you've got - that the climate has been warmer before humans existed, therefore humans are not responsible for the warming we are experiencing today. It doesn't work. Most warm periods in the distant past were the consequence of higher concentrations of greenhouse gases. Just like the warming today.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(298 days ago)

1. Your figures are substantially off.

2. How was the human species doing back in those days?

3. What physical phenomenon caused the average temperature to be that much higher? (Did I hear rampant greenhouse effect?)

3. What physical phenomenon caused the average temperature to be that much higher? (Did I hear rampant greenhouse effect?)

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

guest123456789(298 days ago)

1. Then what do you say are your alternative facts?

2. Humans were not around at that time. That is my whole point. These cycles occur regardless of human activity.

3. Don't know and don't care. All I need to know is that humans did not cause it and that casts doubt about AGW. We are coming out of an ice age wo it is common sense that the termperatures are warming and would be doing so with or without us. We might be expediting it slightly but, by how much that is, is unknown.

2. Humans were not around at that time. That is my whole point. These cycles occur regardless of human activity.

3. Don't know and don't care. All I need to know is that humans did not cause it and that casts doubt about AGW. We are coming out of an ice age wo it is common sense that the termperatures are warming and would be doing so with or without us. We might be expediting it slightly but, by how much that is, is unknown.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(298 days ago)

Atmospheric CO2 (climate gas) has been declining steadily for the past 65 mill years. Around the time of the industrial revolution when we started burning fossil fuels on a large scale, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 sky rocketed and has been increasing ever since. Is that just a coincidence? I don't think the odds are in your favour.

Atmospheric CO2 (climate gas) has been declining steadily for the past 65 mill years. Around the time of the industrial revolution when we started burning fossil fuels on a large scale, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 sky rocketed and has been increasing ever since. Is that just a coincidence? I don't think the odds are in your favour.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
The one and only Mad(298 days ago)

It's sad that some people don't take the time to research the limitations of historical proxy studies, in particular the suppression of high frequency variations, and on the scale of millions of years, thousand year cycles are high frequency. Apples and oranges.

It's sad that some people don't take the time to research the limitations of historical proxy studies, in particular the suppression of high frequency variations, and on the scale of millions of years, thousand year cycles are high frequency. Apples and oranges.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(298 days ago)

Sometimes apples and oranges is all you've got. Sure there has been some variations around the trend, but that hardly changes the general direction of the trend.

Sometimes apples and oranges is all you've got. Sure there has been some variations around the trend, but that hardly changes the general direction of the trend.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Real mad(298 days ago)

The variations of the last 2000 or so years from the warm Roman period via the cold dark ages, warm Medieval, cold little ice age, and warm modem period simply won't show up on some of these proxies. Only an ignoramus makes comparisons based on apple and orange data sets.

The variations of the last 2000 or so years from the warm Roman period via the cold dark ages, warm Medieval, cold little ice age, and warm modem period simply won't show up on some of these proxies. Only an ignoramus makes comparisons based on apple and orange data sets.

When you have to make up a bunch of assumptions and pedantic excuses in order to defend your position you are probaly wrong.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
The one and only Mad(297 days ago)

Of course you could actually read some of the original papers detailing these proxy studies. Remember the climate "scientists" don't actually collect and analyze the samples themselves, they merely chuck the figures from other buggers work into a principle component analysis program and coo at what it spits out.

I love chatting with libtards on the subject of science. Concepts like class 1 and class 2 errors and Gigo all forgotten when computers spit out pretty graphs.

One of my favorites emails from the hadley leak, was the one from a tree temperature proxy expert informing Michael Mann in no uncertain terms that bristlecone pines DO NOT make good proxies for temperatures

Of course you could actually read some of the original papers detailing these proxy studies. Remember the climate "scientists" don't actually collect and analyze the samples themselves, they merely chuck the figures from other buggers work into a principle component analysis program and coo at what it spits out.

I love chatting with libtards on the subject of science. Concepts like class 1 and class 2 errors and Gigo all forgotten when computers spit out pretty graphs.

One of my favorites emails from the hadley leak, was the one from a tree temperature proxy expert informing Michael Mann in no uncertain terms that bristlecone pines DO NOT make good proxies for temperatures

All ignored by delusional libtards

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(297 days ago)

(You're the epitome of GIGO, so that concept is not easily forgotten.)

The consentration of atmospheric CO2 is well known for the past 650 000 years from Antarctic ice cores. If you do a statistical analysis of the available data with the null hypotesis being "current atmospheric CO2 levels within natural variation", you would have to reject the null hypotesis and the type 1 error would be minuscule.

And if you then look at the timing of the rise in CO2 levels versus human and industrial development, you'll arrive at a plausible mechanism for the abrupt rise in atmospheric CO2.

(You're the epitome of GIGO, so that concept is not easily forgotten.)

The consentration of atmospheric CO2 is well known for the past 650 000 years from Antarctic ice cores. If you do a statistical analysis of the available data with the null hypotesis being "current atmospheric CO2 levels within natural variation", you would have to reject the null hypotesis and the type 1 error would be minuscule.

And if you then look at the timing of the rise in CO2 levels versus human and industrial development, you'll arrive at a plausible mechanism for the abrupt rise in atmospheric CO2.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Real mad(297 days ago)

Are you reading this Bob. I do remember having a conversation recently about libtards not appreciating being corrected, and getting abusive. But the resolution problem of historical proxies is well documented, even if some people refuse to acknowledge it's importance when comparing the current instrument records to the proxy compiled past.

Are you reading this Bob. I do remember having a conversation recently about libtards not appreciating being corrected, and getting abusive. But the resolution problem of historical proxies is well documented, even if some people refuse to acknowledge it's importance when comparing the current instrument records to the proxy compiled past.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(297 days ago)

No, you're very welcome to correct me any time. But neurotically looking for flaws in the datasets which doesn't support your beliefs, and whole heartedly accepting the datasets which does, is not the way to do that. I think someone mentioned a Texas sharpshooter fallacy?

No, you're very welcome to correct me any time. But neurotically looking for flaws in the datasets which doesn't support your beliefs, and whole heartedly accepting the datasets which does, is not the way to do that. I think someone mentioned a Texas sharpshooter fallacy?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Real mad(297 days ago)

You just won't be told, will ya. You actually prefer your libtard delusions.

Good! And to which explanation does Occam's razor direct you with regards to the developments in atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Real mad(297 days ago)

Occam's razor suggests that as 2016 el nino average temp record was statistically indistinguishable from 1997 el nino avg temp record then the global warming in the last 19 years was zilch, therefore the sensitivity of temp to co2 is zilch divided by 19 equals zilch

Occam's razor suggests that as 2016 el nino average temp record was statistically indistinguishable from 1997 el nino avg temp record then the global warming in the last 19 years was zilch, therefore the sensitivity of temp to co2 is zilch divided by 19 equals zilch

You're welcome

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(297 days ago)

Hahhaha, that's not at all what I asked. And way to go on selecting data points in support of your predetermined conclusions. Mrs Conway couldn't have done it any better.

Hahhaha, that's not at all what I asked. And way to go on selecting data points in support of your predetermined conclusions. Mrs Conway couldn't have done it any better.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Real mad(297 days ago)

I compared two years with comparable strong El ninos,( and the recent el nino was the strongest on record )like for like. Zero global warming in the last 19 years.. I'd say that's a worry for you as the effects decay and the pause resumes.

I compared two years with comparable strong El ninos,( and the recent el nino was the strongest on record )like for like. Zero global warming in the last 19 years.. I'd say that's a worry for you as the effects decay and the pause resumes.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(297 days ago)

Yeah, let's hope you're right, but I fear that's only dishonest use of statistics. I think what you're observing is high variance relative to the trend. Look at the development through the last century and you'll see which way the temperatures are heading.

But I am interested in your views on the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Given what we know today (all flawed proxies and datasets), do you agree that it's likely that the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration mainly can be attributed to human activity? And if no, why not?

Yeah, let's hope you're right, but I fear that's only dishonest use of statistics. I think what you're observing is high variance relative to the trend. Look at the development through the last century and you'll see which way the temperatures are heading.

But I am interested in your views on the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Given what we know today (all flawed proxies and datasets), do you agree that it's likely that the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration mainly can be attributed to human activity? And if no, why not?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(297 days ago)

Brilliant . So funny when you show conservatard real science and he struggles to take it on board. He is always right like his idol so atempts to educate him will always fail. He has breitbart and wikipedia and thats all he needs.

Brilliant . So funny when you show conservatard real science and he struggles to take it on board. He is always right like his idol so atempts to educate him will always fail. He has breitbart and wikipedia and thats all he needs.

Nothing dishonest about it. The average temps of 2016 should have exceeded 1998 by a clear margin, and it didn't.

Btw the oceans are warming, and not due to co2 the change in Henry's coefficient states that the oceans will outgass.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(297 days ago)

I saw a denialist professor do the same trick. He showed a bar graph depicting the steadily rising global temperatures year by year, and stated that the increase from one year to the next was less than one standard deviation and hence insignificant. "Scientifically&quot ; there were no increasing temperatures. That's plain dishonesty.

When your car burns petrol, where does the CO2 end up if not in the atmosphere? We have been introducing vast amounts of new CO2 to the carbon cycle the last 150-200 years. This correlates fairly well with the increase in atmospheric CO2 we have seen. It's possible to construct any old story to explain the increase in CO2 levels. The test is Occam's razor. Although Henry's law is clearly part of the explanation, using Occam's razor you'll see that most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is probably anthropogenic.

I saw a denialist professor do the same trick. He showed a bar graph depicting the steadily rising global temperatures year by year, and stated that the increase from one year to the next was less than one standard deviation and hence insignificant. "Scientifically&quot ; there were no increasing temperatures. That's plain dishonesty.

When your car burns petrol, where does the CO2 end up if not in the atmosphere? We have been introducing vast amounts of new CO2 to the carbon cycle the last 150-200 years. This correlates fairly well with the increase in atmospheric CO2 we have seen. It's possible to construct any old story to explain the increase in CO2 levels. The test is Occam's razor. Although Henry's law is clearly part of the explanation, using Occam's razor you'll see that most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is probably anthropogenic.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Ha ha ha(297 days ago)

I love it when libtards attempt to talk science. it comes out as pure dope head gibberish, displaying their idiocy for all the world to see.

I love it when libtards attempt to talk science. it comes out as pure dope head gibberish, displaying their idiocy for all the world to see.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(297 days ago)

Bwahahaasaaa. In other words conservatard is totally floored by the science of it . Just like he said he cannot accept he is wrong . He is bouncing between wiki pedia and breitbart and oh crap they didnt teach him how to respond to actual peer reviewed science. Guess that university of life aint what its cracked up to be !!

Bwahahaasaaa. In other words conservatard is totally floored by the science of it . Just like he said he cannot accept he is wrong . He is bouncing between wiki pedia and breitbart and oh crap they didnt teach him how to respond to actual peer reviewed science. Guess that university of life aint what its cracked up to be !!

Have you any idea how.much co2 an erupting volcano kicks out ?. Dwarfs the annual human contribution, oh and there is a satellite that maps worldwide atmospheric co2. Launched to a big fanfare, and the results eagerly anticipated, quietly disappeared from public view when results didn't fit the narrative. Curiously the co2 density correlated with subduction zones................

Have you any idea how.much co2 an erupting volcano kicks out ?. Dwarfs the annual human contribution, oh and there is a satellite that maps worldwide atmospheric co2. Launched to a big fanfare, and the results eagerly anticipated, quietly disappeared from public view when results didn't fit the narrative. Curiously the co2 density correlated with subduction zones................

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(296 days ago)

If you look at the atmosphere as a closed system, we annually release between 4-5 ppm worth of CO2 from burning fossil fuels (+-10 gigatonnes of carbon). Since 1870 that adds up to more than 250 ppm (+-560 gigatonnes). Now luckily, the atmosphere isn't a closed system, but anthropogenic CO2 is hardly negligable.

If you look at the atmosphere as a closed system, we annually release between 4-5 ppm worth of CO2 from burning fossil fuels (+-10 gigatonnes of carbon). Since 1870 that adds up to more than 250 ppm (+-560 gigatonnes). Now luckily, the atmosphere isn't a closed system, but anthropogenic CO2 is hardly negligable.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Real mad(296 days ago)

No hum, a lot of assumptions go into those figures, they really don't have a clue about a lot of the numbers they use, most of it is pure guesswork.

No hum, a lot of assumptions go into those figures, they really don't have a clue about a lot of the numbers they use, most of it is pure guesswork.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(295 days ago)

I did the numbers myself on the back of a napkin. There's not really a whole lot of assumptions. I did the following:

- Ripped off the number of molecules in the atmosphere from this guy, LINK I think that's a decent estimate.

- Used the atomic and molecular weights of carbon and CO2 to figure out how many molecules of CO2 one gigatonne of carbon would produce.

- When you know the amount of molecules in the atmosphere and you know the amount of CO2 molecules from one gigatonne of carbon, the ppm per gigatonne carbon can be calculated.

-Then you just plug in any old estimate for carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels (which I guess are pretty good estimates since all the energy companies will know how much they're producing and selling of oil, gas, coal etc).

You're welcome to verify my calculations. With that many zeros to keep track of it's easy to miss by an order of magnitude.

I did the numbers myself on the back of a napkin. There's not really a whole lot of assumptions. I did the following:

- Ripped off the number of molecules in the atmosphere from this guy, LINK I think that's a decent estimate.

- Used the atomic and molecular weights of carbon and CO2 to figure out how many molecules of CO2 one gigatonne of carbon would produce.

- When you know the amount of molecules in the atmosphere and you know the amount of CO2 molecules from one gigatonne of carbon, the ppm per gigatonne carbon can be calculated.

-Then you just plug in any old estimate for carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels (which I guess are pretty good estimates since all the energy companies will know how much they're producing and selling of oil, gas, coal etc).

You're welcome to verify my calculations. With that many zeros to keep track of it's easy to miss by an order of magnitude.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Real mad(289 days ago)

I do loves the way libtards try to have the last word. What I meant is all the figures for the absorption/emmission rates of the various sinks are guesses, they really don't have a clue.For example, the number of volcanoes on the ocean floor has been massively underestimated, and these volcanoes are probably the biggest source of co2 in the atmosphere via outgassing from the oceans.

I do loves the way libtards try to have the last word. What I meant is all the figures for the absorption/emmission rates of the various sinks are guesses, they really don't have a clue.For example, the number of volcanoes on the ocean floor has been massively underestimated, and these volcanoes are probably the biggest source of co2 in the atmosphere via outgassing from the oceans.

bwahaaa now i get comparisons to nazis gee how triggered must you be ?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(288 days ago)

Aww, the little fascist is so filled with hate. You'll just have to wait until you grow up before you can push your murderous will onto people. Don't worry everyone in the world will think exactly the same way you do one day.

Aww, the little fascist is so filled with hate. You'll just have to wait until you grow up before you can push your murderous will onto people. Don't worry everyone in the world will think exactly the same way you do one day.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(288 days ago)

12 MINUTES ! bwahaahaaaaa. oh i am a murderer to apparently. wow suprsing what a conservatard comes out with when you trigger them . let it all out... let it aaaaaaall out

12 MINUTES ! bwahaahaaaaa. oh i am a murderer to apparently. wow suprsing what a conservatard comes out with when you trigger them . let it all out... let it aaaaaaall out

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(288 days ago)

Aww, toddler Mussolini can't detect sarcasm. It does look like toddler Mussolini can do anything other than misinterpret what other people write. He's been reading Alinsky's rules for toddlers and doesn't care about anything other than being right. Which in it's self is wrong. That's whats so funny. When you grow up I recommend Alinsky's rules for narcissists. That teaches you how to always be wrong without knowing it.

Aww, toddler Mussolini can't detect sarcasm. It does look like toddler Mussolini can do anything other than misinterpret what other people write. He's been reading Alinsky's rules for toddlers and doesn't care about anything other than being right. Which in it's self is wrong. That's whats so funny. When you grow up I recommend Alinsky's rules for narcissists. That teaches you how to always be wrong without knowing it.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(288 days ago)

never ever coming back and 6 MINUTES that time gee your getting pumped arent you ? oh yeh alinsky alinsky alinsky . your little master .. i forgot you love to show us how your idol operates its like you go through it 1 by 1 . never heard of him until you came along but reading the summary yep you follow it to the letter what with your mockery.. your identity tricks.. your continued pressure (rule 5?) . aww im a meany mussolini now your just trying to hurt my feelings BWAHAAAhahaa now why not have another tantrum and pretend your storming off again . if your not back within 6 mins we will send our a search party !!!!

never ever coming back and 6 MINUTES that time gee your getting pumped arent you ? oh yeh alinsky alinsky alinsky . your little master .. i forgot you love to show us how your idol operates its like you go through it 1 by 1 . never heard of him until you came along but reading the summary yep you follow it to the letter what with your mockery.. your identity tricks.. your continued pressure (rule 5?) . aww im a meany mussolini now your just trying to hurt my feelings BWAHAAAhahaa now why not have another tantrum and pretend your storming off again . if your not back within 6 mins we will send our a search party !!!!

Yeah, bullsh*t you've never heard of Alinsky. Your projection gives you away. You go straight the the most appropriate Alinsky rule for this situation:

Rule 5 “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defence. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

Its like you have the rules memorised. Alinsky rules for extremists would be a more appropriate title. Anyone who thinks these rules represent anything other than how to be a sociopath probably is a sociopath.

Yeah, bullsh*t you've never heard of Alinsky. Your projection gives you away. You go straight the the most appropriate Alinsky rule for this situation:

Rule 5 “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defence. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

Its like you have the rules memorised. Alinsky rules for extremists would be a more appropriate title. Anyone who thinks these rules represent anything other than how to be a sociopath probably is a sociopath.

boo hoo hoo i called you out and now you dont know what to do other than fling projections and insults my way . original insults ? insults based on stuff i have said ? hell no just your average one-sized-fits-all-Breitb art insults that you been brain washed to throw at any one who catches you out . i am flattered you realize that and flattered you think i can be arsed to research your political idols . ridicule.. yes "libtards this libtards that", "socipaths", "toddler mussolini" "thats retarded" .. thats right you are following the rules to the letter even in that 1 comment . what a good lil convert you are conservatard . i come here to watch you get your ass handed to you on science and politics and you never fail me . i can tell you know your stumped because you start arguing with your dumb assumptions . like where have i mentioned clinton ? you are obsessed and we got you running round chasing your tail

boo hoo hoo i called you out and now you dont know what to do other than fling projections and insults my way . original insults ? insults based on stuff i have said ? hell no just your average one-sized-fits-all-Breitb art insults that you been brain washed to throw at any one who catches you out . i am flattered you realize that and flattered you think i can be arsed to research your political idols . ridicule.. yes "libtards this libtards that", "socipaths", "toddler mussolini" "thats retarded" .. thats right you are following the rules to the letter even in that 1 comment . what a good lil convert you are conservatard . i come here to watch you get your ass handed to you on science and politics and you never fail me . i can tell you know your stumped because you start arguing with your dumb assumptions . like where have i mentioned clinton ? you are obsessed and we got you running round chasing your tail

hilarious

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(288 days ago)

Man, you can't follow anything I write, can't see the connections, can't see that I'm satirising your extremism.

What I find hilarious is that you seem to thing everyones brainwashed except you and your side. Now that really is brainwashed.

Completely blinded by hatred yet convince you're virtuous and on the side of good. I'd bet you're completely untrustworthy in real life. Quick to screw over your friends (if you have any friends) and a devious and manipulative prick - an underdeveloped conscience, developmentally still a toddler.

Man, you can't follow anything I write, can't see the connections, can't see that I'm satirising your extremism.

What I find hilarious is that you seem to thing everyones brainwashed except you and your side. Now that really is brainwashed.

Completely blinded by hatred yet convince you're virtuous and on the side of good. I'd bet you're completely untrustworthy in real life. Quick to screw over your friends (if you have any friends) and a devious and manipulative prick - an underdeveloped conscience, developmentally still a toddler.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(288 days ago)

yeh yeh yeh i cant follow your arguments your just SO smart .. apparently its part of the conservatard narcissistic mindset to think themselves morally and intellectually superior . "IM not brain washed YOUR brain washed" great one really convincing arguing style well done gee i wish i could be as mature as you cottage cheese . if you start reading what people really write instead of making dumb ass assumptions (where did i mention hitlery ?) and crying second hand genralized abuse (alinsky alinsky) then you get to be an original thinker and not brain washed . try it i dare you . ooh no not a prick now as well .. no conscience .. more mocking projections ? come on triggered.. you dont need to conform to your own alinsky mocking rule so easily . at least pretend that your avoiding walking in to your own traps . sadly you will never be important enough for any one to hate

yeh yeh yeh i cant follow your arguments your just SO smart .. apparently its part of the conservatard narcissistic mindset to think themselves morally and intellectually superior . "IM not brain washed YOUR brain washed" great one really convincing arguing style well done gee i wish i could be as mature as you cottage cheese . if you start reading what people really write instead of making dumb ass assumptions (where did i mention hitlery ?) and crying second hand genralized abuse (alinsky alinsky) then you get to be an original thinker and not brain washed . try it i dare you . ooh no not a prick now as well .. no conscience .. more mocking projections ? come on triggered.. you dont need to conform to your own alinsky mocking rule so easily . at least pretend that your avoiding walking in to your own traps . sadly you will never be important enough for any one to hate

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(288 days ago)

"IM not brain washed YOUR brain washed"

I didn't say that. Thinking that you're political opponents are brainwashed demonstrates that you have a theory of mind deficit.

Man, you're a walking talking reality distortion. Thats what viewing the world through eyes filled with hatred does to a person though.

How can so much gibberish come out of one person? I think you need to be put in a straight jacket to protect yourself from yourself.

I didn't say that. Thinking that you're political opponents are brainwashed demonstrates that you have a theory of mind deficit.

Man, you're a walking talking reality distortion. Thats what viewing the world through eyes filled with hatred does to a person though.

How can so much gibberish come out of one person? I think you need to be put in a straight jacket to protect yourself from yourself.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(288 days ago)

you didnt say that but you meant it .. read " you seem to thing everyones brainwashed except you and your side. Now that really is brainwashed." means the same thing see ? this aint rocket science . yep i know we are all talking gibberish nonsense (rule 5 mockery surely) .. any one who doesnt conform to your brain washed info .. any one that points out when you directly contradict your self .. any one that hauls you up when you say things based on assumptions instead of things based on what we are actually saying . but go ahead i am just an alinsky loving libtard who supports hitlery apparently . in fact thats what i HAVE to be because thats all you can argue against . stick your head back in the sand and trot out some more breitbart insults or some more projections . it clearly keeps you happy . you thought you were strong enough to leave boreme and you proved diferent . no matter your always welcome here . you and your half dozen alter egos . (changing device doesnt hide you btw)

you didnt say that but you meant it .. read " you seem to thing everyones brainwashed except you and your side. Now that really is brainwashed." means the same thing see ? this aint rocket science . yep i know we are all talking gibberish nonsense (rule 5 mockery surely) .. any one who doesnt conform to your brain washed info .. any one that points out when you directly contradict your self .. any one that hauls you up when you say things based on assumptions instead of things based on what we are actually saying . but go ahead i am just an alinsky loving libtard who supports hitlery apparently . in fact thats what i HAVE to be because thats all you can argue against . stick your head back in the sand and trot out some more breitbart insults or some more projections . it clearly keeps you happy . you thought you were strong enough to leave boreme and you proved diferent . no matter your always welcome here . you and your half dozen alter egos . (changing device doesnt hide you btw)

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(288 days ago)

This has been fun, but it's now boring. And you're a total nutjob retard anyway. See ya, wouldn't want to be ya.

This has been fun, but it's now boring. And you're a total nutjob retard anyway. See ya, wouldn't want to be ya.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(288 days ago)

total nutjob retard.. is that an alinsky rule 5 tactic by any chance ? bwaaha shot your self in the foot again . oh but your going now again. definitly this time right ?.. like a big man.. you dont need this site.. your bigger than that .. you will never use such a boring place .. see you in a little while conservatard

total nutjob retard.. is that an alinsky rule 5 tactic by any chance ? bwaaha shot your self in the foot again . oh but your going now again. definitly this time right ?.. like a big man.. you dont need this site.. your bigger than that .. you will never use such a boring place .. see you in a little while conservatard

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(288 days ago)

The ice cores tells us that the atmospheric CO2 concentrations were more or less in equilibrium in the pre-industrial age, varying within a certain range. In the mid 1800s we start burning fossil fuels, and the atmospheric CO2 concentration goes through the roof.

The ice cores tells us that the atmospheric CO2 concentrations were more or less in equilibrium in the pre-industrial age, varying within a certain range. In the mid 1800s we start burning fossil fuels, and the atmospheric CO2 concentration goes through the roof.

Seems to me we're back at Occam's razor again.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Real max(288 days ago)

Ice doesn't become fully solid until - 50c. There is liquid water between the crystals and CO2 is very soluble in cold water. It only becomes a good record if CO2 cannot transport through the ice.

Have you any evidence that high frequency variations never happened in the past ? The Ice cores lack the resolution to pick such fluctuations up.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(287 days ago)

So you are basically hoping and praying for a magical feedback loop which will bring the atmospheric CO2 levels back to a pre-industrial equilibrium. At this point in time nobody can disprove that, any more than they can disprove Santa Clause. But you're back at Occam's razor again.

So you are basically hoping and praying for a magical feedback loop which will bring the atmospheric CO2 levels back to a pre-industrial equilibrium. At this point in time nobody can disprove that, any more than they can disprove Santa Clause. But you're back at Occam's razor again.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Still here an mad(287 days ago)

What's occams razor got to do with it ya ignoramous ?. Have you never heard of equilibria.The only magical feedback loop is the H2O amplofi action required by the libtards loonies.

Bob I'm fully aware that you are reduced to mumbling about spelling, after all that's all you've got to attack me on

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(287 days ago)

I have seen ThBob try to teach you about science. I have seen Walter do it, and countless other guests and users here too. It doesn't work. I have seen them cite huge studies, peer-reviewed journals, endless official data, but no - you know better. You've read a couple of articles on Breitbart, maybe a Wikipedia article or two, and now you're an expert. True narcissism? Effective trolling? Who knows.

I have seen ThBob try to teach you about science. I have seen Walter do it, and countless other guests and users here too. It doesn't work. I have seen them cite huge studies, peer-reviewed journals, endless official data, but no - you know better. You've read a couple of articles on Breitbart, maybe a Wikipedia article or two, and now you're an expert. True narcissism? Effective trolling? Who knows.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Still here an mad(287 days ago)

Feel free to quote equations,whilst describing in detail why they are relevant.........Ya know like real science literate people do........ Oh sorry you and your fellow libtards struggle with important things like comprehension and understanding of the principles and details of science,......That's why you can only repeat what is fed to you by your propaganda outlets of choice.

Feel free to quote equations,whilst describing in detail why they are relevant.........Ya know like real science literate people do........ Oh sorry you and your fellow libtards struggle with important things like comprehension and understanding of the principles and details of science,......That's why you can only repeat what is fed to you by your propaganda outlets of choice.

Bwaaaaaaaaaah.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(287 days ago)

Christ on a bike. Is this character of yours purposefully blind to irony? Come on now. Make him more plausible; it's too rich.

Because you can't understand me doesn't make me incoherent, it just shows you to be lacking.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(286 days ago)

OK I'll explain what I mean by coherent and consistent.

A few hypothetical examples.

- If you complain that mockery, abuse and insults show that those things are "all someone has left", or shows that they are following Alinsky rules, then it's not coherent or consistent to then spend most of your comments mocking, abusing and insulting people.

- If you claim that a belief in intellectual or moral superiority, or general narcissism, is not a virtue and is a sign that someone is a "libtard moron" etc. (see above), then it's not coherent or consistent to say things like "you can't understand me", "you lack basic understanding" and talk about yourself in the third person etc. etc.

- If you want to pretend to be "like real science literate people", then it's not coherent or consistent to have a tantrum if anyone ever asks you a direct question or asks for objective data rather than articles from a political website, and use insults instead of making simple responses.

That's why it's so hard to take you seriously, even for Conservatives or Republicans. It's not because you don't conform to our standards of logic or rationality - it's that you dont conform to your own, and you make that very clear. If you can't meet the rules that you yourself are vociferously setting, that says a lot about you.

Go for your other sock puppet. Marginally more convincing, albeit marginally less entertaining.

- If you complain that mockery, abuse and insults show that those things are "all someone has left", or shows that they are following Alinsky rules, then it's not coherent or consistent to then spend most of your comments mocking, abusing and insulting people.

- If you claim that a belief in intellectual or moral superiority, or general narcissism, is not a virtue and is a sign that someone is a "libtard moron" etc. (see above), then it's not coherent or consistent to say things like "you can't understand me", "you lack basic understanding" and talk about yourself in the third person etc. etc.

- If you want to pretend to be "like real science literate people", then it's not coherent or consistent to have a tantrum if anyone ever asks you a direct question or asks for objective data rather than articles from a political website, and use insults instead of making simple responses.

That's why it's so hard to take you seriously, even for Conservatives or Republicans. It's not because you don't conform to our standards of logic or rationality - it's that you dont conform to your own, and you make that very clear. If you can't meet the rules that you yourself are vociferously setting, that says a lot about you.

Go for your other sock puppet. Marginally more convincing, albeit marginally less entertaining.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Still here an mad(286 days ago)

Nice tantrum essay. Gee do you really think I give a flying f*** about having a "science" discussion with libtards whose educational standard in science is sub normal for 14 year olds.

I just enjoy putting science concepts in front of them and watching it go straight over their heads.

Logic and rationality on the subject of science is nigh impossible for those who haven't even a smidgen of understanding of the basics of calculus, it's like attempting to swim the channel with you arms chained together.

Seriously do go down to the library and open a textbook on physics, it's all differential equations, everything is about vibrations and waves.

Nice tantrum essay. Gee do you really think I give a flying f*** about having a "science" discussion with libtards whose educational standard in science is sub normal for 14 year olds.

I just enjoy putting science concepts in front of them and watching it go straight over their heads.

Logic and rationality on the subject of science is nigh impossible for those who haven't even a smidgen of understanding of the basics of calculus, it's like attempting to swim the channel with you arms chained together.

Seriously do go down to the library and open a textbook on physics, it's all differential equations, everything is about vibrations and waves.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(286 days ago)

bwahaaaaa tldr

nice gish galluping from conservatard who left school at 14 . again on this page we seem him totally pwnd by smarter guys and all he has left is insults and rambling on about equations . oooo did he say the word diferential equations he MUST be smart lmao .he comes here to feel young again its just like he is back at school being bullied again for being the dunce . this time he has WIKIPEDIA and BREITBART at his finger tips and loadsa insults . i guess the jokes on us bwahaaaaaahahahaaa

nice gish galluping from conservatard who left school at 14 . again on this page we seem him totally pwnd by smarter guys and all he has left is insults and rambling on about equations . oooo did he say the word diferential equations he MUST be smart lmao .he comes here to feel young again its just like he is back at school being bullied again for being the dunce . this time he has WIKIPEDIA and BREITBART at his finger tips and loadsa insults . i guess the jokes on us bwahaaaaaahahahaaa

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(286 days ago)

Instead of a flood of insults, why don't you put him down by selecting an advanced science subject and going into details ?

That's not unlikely, but you are definitely the highest ranking Libtard.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(285 days ago)

fight fire with fire . i have seen guys here teach him about science and all he has is insults and rule 5 mocking and it aint working . he is still just as dumb . so if he is allowed a flood of insults for a whole page how i come i am not ? ooo i wonder !!!

fight fire with fire . i have seen guys here teach him about science and all he has is insults and rule 5 mocking and it aint working . he is still just as dumb . so if he is allowed a flood of insults for a whole page how i come i am not ? ooo i wonder !!!

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(285 days ago)

Then here we go again. Of course, "conservatard" always starts it the petulant abuse, as he is clearly unable to 'argue' any other way, but at least until you show up one half of the discussion is vaguely measured. In fact it's quite fun to watch him flailing against more reasonable and better educated commenters. However, when you start to reflect his own behaviour back at him, we end up with an unbroken flood of schoolyard tantrums both ways. Perhaps you could exchange contact details, and leave us adults to debate things on here.

Then here we go again. Of course, "conservatard" always starts it the petulant abuse, as he is clearly unable to 'argue' any other way, but at least until you show up one half of the discussion is vaguely measured. In fact it's quite fun to watch him flailing against more reasonable and better educated commenters. However, when you start to reflect his own behaviour back at him, we end up with an unbroken flood of schoolyard tantrums both ways. Perhaps you could exchange contact details, and leave us adults to debate things on here.

My god I so agree, PS I've never met someone as intelligent as me. Let me give you multiple thumbs up

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(286 days ago)

libtard you are wasting your time . conservatard cant be consistent from 1 comment to the next comment . he doesnt even understand what you mean if he can even read that much . thats why he wont reply to your individual points not even 1 of them . he isnt even real . NO ONE is that ******* retarded . i mean i met some retards in my life but serious . no one.

libtard you are wasting your time . conservatard cant be consistent from 1 comment to the next comment . he doesnt even understand what you mean if he can even read that much . thats why he wont reply to your individual points not even 1 of them . he isnt even real . NO ONE is that ******* retarded . i mean i met some retards in my life but serious . no one.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(287 days ago)

He got his doctorate in physics and climatology from the University of Life. Evidently, they are less concerned with literacy levels than your average make-believe education establishment.

How would you know ? I don't generally have to go beyond 1st year A level concepts to flummox you,, excepting the special school students, most 14 year olds hrave a better grasp of science than you.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(287 days ago)

How would we know? Because a doctorate requires a degree, a degree requires A-levels (these days), and A-levels require GCSEs. There is simply no way you got a pass mark for GCSE Reading comprehension, writing, or Sciences, let alone A-levels. I say that with complete certainty.

I'm afraid having an education isn't something you can just lie about. It shows in the things you say, and the way you say them. Mind you, you once told us education is enforced ignorance - the sort of Wikiquote that someone without an education would come up with.

How would we know? Because a doctorate requires a degree, a degree requires A-levels (these days), and A-levels require GCSEs. There is simply no way you got a pass mark for GCSE Reading comprehension, writing, or Sciences, let alone A-levels. I say that with complete certainty.

I'm afraid having an education isn't something you can just lie about. It shows in the things you say, and the way you say them. Mind you, you once told us education is enforced ignorance - the sort of Wikiquote that someone without an education would come up with.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(287 days ago)

It wasn't Mad who quoted Chomsky, it was me. And by the way it's "imposed" not "enforced". The quote is certainly applicable to me and my education. I'm getting more aware of that all the time. And being the victim of Libtroll's wild accusations, I saw the quote was applying to him aswell.

You can probably justify being smug about your credentials, but some make a point of being a tad more humble.

It wasn't Mad who quoted Chomsky, it was me. And by the way it's "imposed" not "enforced". The quote is certainly applicable to me and my education. I'm getting more aware of that all the time. And being the victim of Libtroll's wild accusations, I saw the quote was applying to him aswell.

You can probably justify being smug about your credentials, but some make a point of being a tad more humble.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(287 days ago)

Oh yes - I remember you. The mysterious (and definitely unrelated) guest who sweeps in at opportune times to defend 'Mad' - you're the valiant guardian who curiously misses the endless comments of schoolyard abuse and bizarre arrogance from 'Mad', yet who is on hand to immediately claim someone isn't humble when they dare to suggest education is not something you can just fake. Well, you seem like such an accurate and impartial judge of character - perhaps when I become as humble and mature as 'Mad' you won't pick me up so readily.

Oh yes - I remember you. The mysterious (and definitely unrelated) guest who sweeps in at opportune times to defend 'Mad' - you're the valiant guardian who curiously misses the endless comments of schoolyard abuse and bizarre arrogance from 'Mad', yet who is on hand to immediately claim someone isn't humble when they dare to suggest education is not something you can just fake. Well, you seem like such an accurate and impartial judge of character - perhaps when I become as humble and mature as 'Mad' you won't pick me up so readily.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Still here an mad(287 days ago)

Maybe if one of the libtards was prepared to successfully challenge Mad on his chosen subject of mathematics or physics, then maybe my defenders wouldn't be so quick to defend me.

But you bottle the challenge every time, and that puts a perspective on all the bluster and insults.

Maybe if one of the libtards was prepared to successfully challenge Mad on his chosen subject of mathematics or physics, then maybe my defenders wouldn't be so quick to defend me.

But you bottle the challenge every time, and that puts a perspective on all the bluster and insults.

You lose everytime and my defenders have spotted that.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(286 days ago)

I have seen you successfully challenged on maths and physics and climatology and politics and geography and literacy and pretty much every topic you regurgitate from Breitbart. You never attempt to fully comprehend a subject matter, which is why people find it so easy to refute your simplistic conspiracy theories. What do they get for their troubles? Libtard, morons, idiots, dumbasses, ignoramouses (sic), etc. etc, from either you or your sock puppet - and then you come on talking about bluster and insults. You will never admit that though, of course, because (along with talking about yourself in the 3rd person) it is a symptom of profound narcissism and low ability.

I have seen you successfully challenged on maths and physics and climatology and politics and geography and literacy and pretty much every topic you regurgitate from Breitbart. You never attempt to fully comprehend a subject matter, which is why people find it so easy to refute your simplistic conspiracy theories. What do they get for their troubles? Libtard, morons, idiots, dumbasses, ignoramouses (sic), etc. etc, from either you or your sock puppet - and then you come on talking about bluster and insults. You will never admit that though, of course, because (along with talking about yourself in the 3rd person) it is a symptom of profound narcissism and low ability.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Still here an mad(286 days ago)

Nah you haven't, what you've actually seen is morons using completely fallacious arguments in failed attempts to silence me

I find it quite hilarious how you morons shoot yourself in the foot, by displaying your ignorance for the whole world to see.

Your problem is that you are so inept at maths and science, that you can't even spot me running rings around you.

Oh right. That's a really interesting interpretation. In my Conservative libtard world, when people fail to answer simple direct questions and become abusive and defensive instead, it not only signals that they are out of their depth in terms of subject knowledge, but signals that they know they are too. If you were a genuine user, it's certain that by now you would realise that you're trolling us and have no real confidence in your abilities. Your mention of equations for example, when you've never used one or even cited any actual maths, shows us that you realise that you can't live up to even the low benchmarks that you've set yourself. You've twigged, we've twigged. That's good enough for me.

Oh right. That's a really interesting interpretation. In my Conservative libtard world, when people fail to answer simple direct questions and become abusive and defensive instead, it not only signals that they are out of their depth in terms of subject knowledge, but signals that they know they are too. If you were a genuine user, it's certain that by now you would realise that you're trolling us and have no real confidence in your abilities. Your mention of equations for example, when you've never used one or even cited any actual maths, shows us that you realise that you can't live up to even the low benchmarks that you've set yourself. You've twigged, we've twigged. That's good enough for me.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(286 days ago)

I don't think I am related to Mad, but who knows.. We're all anynomous, he might be a crazy aunt or something.

He has been calling me an "ignoramous" and moron for days on end on this thread. You're the one sweeping in, not me.

I thought I'd tell you that you were accusing Mad for something he didn't do. But taking into account your level of education and credentials, I realize that you must be right and I'm wrong. I am sorry master, it won't happen again.

I thought I'd tell you that you were accusing Mad for something he didn't do. But taking into account your level of education and credentials, I realize that you must be right and I'm wrong. I am sorry master, it won't happen again.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(286 days ago)

Well as a very wise and humble user once told me "who knows.. We're all anynomous". I guess claims relating to identity don't carry an awful lot of weight here when the people concerned post under multiple names and multiple characters even.

I haven't actually mentioned any of my credentials - just pointed the lack of them among those who seem over-willing to regurgitate things they have read on political websites. Sorry you find that point so abhorrent. Anyway, do please let me know if you have any further assessments of my character.

Well as a very wise and humble user once told me "who knows.. We're all anynomous". I guess claims relating to identity don't carry an awful lot of weight here when the people concerned post under multiple names and multiple characters even.

I haven't actually mentioned any of my credentials - just pointed the lack of them among those who seem over-willing to regurgitate things they have read on political websites. Sorry you find that point so abhorrent. Anyway, do please let me know if you have any further assessments of my character.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(286 days ago)

Not at all abhorrent. If I get out my dictionary and you get your facts straightened out, I am sure we'll get along fine. In fact, if you're eager to play with Mad, you're welcome to continue the never ending story on atmospheric CO2. I'll get out of your hair.

Not at all abhorrent. If I get out my dictionary and you get your facts straightened out, I am sure we'll get along fine. In fact, if you're eager to play with Mad, you're welcome to continue the never ending story on atmospheric CO2. I'll get out of your hair.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(287 days ago)

I don't know many natural systems where you can increase the rate at the inlet without increasing the total amount contained within the system. Thinking that the atmosphere would be one of those magic systems is kind of a silly assumption, don't you agree? It's not entirely impossible, just highly unlikely. Like Santa Clause. Hence Occam's razor.

I don't know many natural systems where you can increase the rate at the inlet without increasing the total amount contained within the system. Thinking that the atmosphere would be one of those magic systems is kind of a silly assumption, don't you agree? It's not entirely impossible, just highly unlikely. Like Santa Clause. Hence Occam's razor.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Still here an mad(287 days ago)

The atmosphere isn't a closed system ya moron. The amount of co2 dissolved in the oceans outweighs the atmosphere 1000,s of times over.